Investors at Thursday's Apple shareholder meeting had the opportunity to ask the company's executives about a range of topics, including the prospect of an Apple television set, a stock dividend, and its relationship with Facebook.

One shareholder asked Chief Executive Tim Cook whether he views Facebook as a "friend" or a "foe." Cook responded by calling Facebook a "friend."

"We do a lot with them, our users use Facebook an enormous amount," he said, adding: "I've always thought that the two companies could do more together."

Apple has shown a close relationship with Twitter, integrating the social networking service into iOS 5, as well as its forthcoming OS X 10.8 Mountain lion operating system for the Mac. But "share" buttons for Facebook are not yet built in to Apple's operating system.

The same shareholder also asked Cook whether he should return an LG TV that they recently purchased. Unsurprisingly, the Apple CEO offered no comment on that question.

Investors at Thursday's meetings also suggested a number of potential uses for Apple's massive $100 billion cash hoard, including a cash dividend. To that end, Cook simply repeated his previous comments that the company is thinking "very deeply" about what to do with its cash pile.

"My message there is that the board and the management are thinking about this very deeply... and we will do what we think is in the best interest of shareholders," he said.

Apple should keep the money in the bank and not give out a dividend. If Apple plans to stay in business another 35 years (or longer) that means they will have to endure periodic hard times. Large cash reserves come in handy when an inflection point arrives.

Apple should keep the money in the bank and not give out a dividend. If Apple plans to stay in business another 35 years (or longer) that means they will have to endure periodic hard times. Large cash reserves come in handy when an inflection point arrives.

Apple should wire 10% of the cash into my bank account.

While I am a shareholder and would love a dividend, seeing Apple purchase strategic companies would be a better option.

Apple should keep the money in the bank and not give out a dividend. If Apple plans to stay in business another 35 years (or longer) that means they will have to endure periodic hard times. Large cash reserves come in handy when an inflection point arrives.

I agree. Although the run-up in the stock market has been spectacular, I'm not convinced it's in a recovery mode. The bottom has still not fallen out. There are a whole new wave of bankruptcies and foreclosures that are definitely coming and this has been recognized for some time.

I agree. Although the run-up in the stock market has been spectacular, I'm not convinced it's in a recovery mode. The bottom has still not fallen out. There are a whole new wave of bankruptcies and foreclosures that are definitely coming and this has been recognized for some time.

With the recent Obama proposal on how dividends would be taxed on the table, it's very unlikely that a dividend would be considered.... a share buy back might work, however.

Opportunities could abound if we have a second wave down... quite frankly I see it in the cards.

I agree. Although the run-up in the stock market has been spectacular, I'm not convinced it's in a recovery mode. The bottom has still not fallen out. There are a whole new wave of bankruptcies and foreclosures that are definitely coming and this has been recognized for some time.

My, aren't you a bastion of hope and good will!! Specific to AAPL, we are seeing a slow, mild PE recovery.

Specific to the real-estate market, many things are still over valued, especially in high-income areas. But, from what I have seen, it is mainly in that ~10% range and not the 30-50% we saw from the top.

It's nice to hear Cook say that they'll do what's in the best interest of shareholders....ie, having a healthy respect for the people that actually own the company.

Those that "own" Apple and other companies often are not concerned with the goings on of the company or its long term viability unless they see a short term gain on their investment. Many shareholders often think nothing of making poor decisions if it means a short term profit. Then they can move on to another company and do the same.

With the recent Obama proposal on how dividends would be taxed on the table, it's very unlikely that a dividend would be considered.... a share buy back might work, however.

Opportunities could abound if we have a second wave down... quite frankly I see it in the cards.

I'm a shareholder, so I guess that gives me a right to an opinion. In my opinion, dividends are for companies that are trying to keep their stock price up. That's not even close to something Apple needs to worry about.

However, if one views a "stock buyback" as a "stock buy" (that is, buying stock that can later be sold for a profit), then a stock buyback makes sense. In effect, they would be investing in their own ability to grow the worth of their stock. And that's a whole lot more useful for Apple.

Of course, selling the stock in the future would tend to depress the price. So maybe just not issuing any more stock for a while can accomplish the same goal. Instead, they'd buy stock off the open market to pay off any employee stock purchases or options. Sounds like the same thing in dutch, but it allows them to "grow" the value of any future stock issues.

We shareholders "win" because the stock quantity stops diluting. That limits the supply, which increases the demand.

BTW, I'm not convinced by the argument of many that Apple's "job" is to do what's best for the stockholders, especially in the short term. Their primary job is to (1) grow the customer base, and (2) keep the existing customer base satisfied with their products. We "owners" are just along for the ride, for which we paid our "fare".

I'm a shareholder, so I guess that gives me a right to an opinion. In my opinion, dividends are for companies that are trying to keep their stock price up. That's not even close to something Apple needs to worry about.

However, if one views a "stock buyback" as a "stock buy" (that is, buying stock that can later be sold for a profit), then a stock buyback makes sense. In effect, they would be investing in their own ability to grow the worth of their stock. And that's a whole lot more useful for Apple.

Of course, selling the stock in the future would tend to depress the price. So maybe just not issuing any more stock for a while can accomplish the same goal. Instead, they'd buy stock off the open market to pay off any employee stock purchases or options. Sounds like the same thing in dutch, but it allows them to "grow" the value of any future stock issues.

We shareholders "win" because the stock quantity stops diluting. That limits the supply, which increases the demand.

BTW, I'm not convinced by the argument of many that Apple's "job" is to do what's best for the stockholders, especially in the short term. Their primary job is to (1) grow the customer base, and (2) keep the existing customer base satisfied with their products. We "owners" are just along for the ride, for which we paid our "fare".

That's not the way a stock buy-back typically works. Usually, when a cash-rich company buys back its stock, it then takes the stock out of circulation and does not resell it at a later date. Since fewer shares are in circulation, the average value per share goes up proportionally.

Apple has not issued or sold shares for a long time.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

Those that "own" Apple and other companies often are not concerned with the goings on of the company or its long term viability unless they see a short term gain on their investment. Many shareholders often think nothing of making poor decisions if it means a short term profit. Then they can move on to another company and do the same.

Not sure I could have a healthy respect for that.

I agree with you, but the best interest of the shareholders is the longevity of Apple, Inc. and it remaining a valuable company.

That's not the way a stock buy-back typically works. Usually, when a cash-rich company buys back its stock, it then takes the stock out of circulation and does not resell it at a later date. Since fewer shares are in circulation, the average value per share goes up proportionally.

Apple has not issued or sold shares for a long time.

Not true. They are constantly diluting with new shares. I'm simply suggesting they stop doing so - for a while.

I agree. Although the run-up in the stock market has been spectacular, I'm not convinced it's in a recovery mode. The bottom has still not fallen out. There are a whole new wave of bankruptcies and foreclosures that are definitely coming and this has been recognized for some time.

I don't think you or anyone has a crystal ball that can assure that this is "definitely coming". Yes, if the Republicans can succeed in spiking the recovery, that might happen. They haven't succeeded yet, and goodness knows they've tried!

Originally Posted by Gustav
Those that "own" Apple and other companies often are not concerned with the goings on of the company or its long term viability unless they see a short term gain on their investment. Many shareholders often think nothing of making poor decisions if it means a short term profit. Then they can move on to another company and do the same.

Not sure I could have a healthy respect for that.

I agree with you, but the best interest of the shareholders is the longevity of Apple, Inc. and it remaining a valuable company.

That's one of the reasons I'm in favor of not splitting Apple stock. It basically gives the short players more leverage to dink the stock. Paying a large sum for a stock tends to make you a long player (unless you're mega-wealthy).

Paying a large sum for a stock tends to make you a long player (unless you're mega-wealthy).

I admit that I'm not very knowledgeable at all about stocks, but it would seem to me that AAPL makes perfect sense for the short term player, because it's more expensive compared to other stocks, there is a lot more movement on it.

If I were a short term trader, I'd rather be be buying and selling a stock that moves up and down many dollars a day, instead of buying some other cheaper stocks which moves only pennies a day. But like I said, I am clueless when it comes to stocks, so that's just my observation.

That's not the way a stock buy-back typically works. Usually, when a cash-rich company buys back its stock, it then takes the stock out of circulation and does not resell it at a later date. Since fewer shares are in circulation, the average value per share goes up proportionally.

You can buy back shares to hold as treasury stock, to use (as was pointed out before) when employee options are exercised. This mitigates ownership dilution.

Cash leaves the company for the amount purchased, lowering share price by that amount, counteracting the effect of decrease in number of shares outstanding. There are also signaling effects (usually very positive) associated with buybacks that are independent of the supply/demand effects.

Folks in the business of short sales are usually much larger market players, and it doesn't matter very much whether a stock is trading in the 10s of dollars or 100s for them to be able to do what they do.

Not that I would know of any business FB and Apple share, so they can be friends as they don´t have any business

Quote:

Originally Posted by LongwoodBob

With the recent Obama proposal on how dividends would be taxed on the table, it's very unlikely that a dividend would be considered.... a share buy back might work, however.

Opportunities could abound if we have a second wave down... quite frankly I see it in the cards.

Buyback at such a high price point in the current global financial state?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gustav

Those that "own" Apple and other companies often are not concerned with the goings on of the company or its long term viability unless they see a short term gain on their investment. Many shareholders often think nothing of making poor decisions if it means a short term profit. Then they can move on to another company and do the same.

Not sure I could have a healthy respect for that.

The average investor sees to doubling his investment within a decade or milking within half a decade at a potentially higher premium. The rest is called speculator, e.g. day trade shitflies - the sound ones go to Vegas with a scheme.

What´s the different between healthy and unhealthy respect, serious?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sacto Joe

I'm a shareholder, so I guess that gives me a right to an opinion. In my opinion, dividends are for companies that are trying to keep their stock price up. That's not even close to something Apple needs to worry about.

However, if one views a "stock buyback" as a "stock buy" (that is, buying stock that can later be sold for a profit), then a stock buyback makes sense. In effect, they would be investing in their own ability to grow the worth of their stock. And that's a whole lot more useful for Apple.

Of course, selling the stock in the future would tend to depress the price. So maybe just not issuing any more stock for a while can accomplish the same goal. Instead, they'd buy stock off the open market to pay off any employee stock purchases or options. Sounds like the same thing in dutch, but it allows them to "grow" the value of any future stock issues.

We shareholders "win" because the stock quantity stops diluting. That limits the supply, which increases the demand.

BTW, I'm not convinced by the argument of many that Apple's "job" is to do what's best for the stockholders, especially in the short term. Their primary job is to (1) grow the customer base, and (2) keep the existing customer base satisfied with their products. We "owners" are just along for the ride, for which we paid our "fare".

1. Opinions are free, no need to buy stock to voice them
2. Primary job is to make great products, figured after 30 eh, 15 years of SJ this should be crystal.
3. A shareholder owns stock, not the company, just a percentage of the ownership of a company

1. Opinions are free, no need to buy stock to voice them
2. Primary job is to make great products, figured after 30 eh, 15 years of SJ this should be crystal.
3. A shareholder owns stock, not the company, just a percentage of the ownership of a company

1. I don't know. Expressing an opinion about how a company should treat stockholders when you don't own any stock would seem to be like complaining about your government when you don't vote. At the very least, it's a waste of everyone's time to read your opinion.

2. Agreed, wholeheartedly.

3. Exactly. It's true that collectively stockholders can decide who sits on the board, and the board can decide what to do with the company, but the best you can call that is ownership by proxy. Besides, you can always sell your stock if you don't like the way it's being handled - and you can always cut off your nose to spite your face!

They definitely do not need to be adding any Facebook integration, with their childish "like" buttons and other nonsense. Don't make OS X all ugly, messing it up with Facebook crap.

And why aren't there any "dislike" buttons? It makes no sense to only have "like" buttons.

I for one, have zero use for Twitter, but use Facebook all the time, so I would much prefer FB sharing integrated into the OS.

Someone who enjoys spewing bile around, of course wants a "dislike" button. And, this is EXACTLY why FB doesn't have one. Why make it easy for people to express negativity? If you have nothing nice to say, just move on, or if you really feel the need to comment, actually form sentences.

My, aren't you a bastion of hope and good will!! Specific to AAPL, we are seeing a slow, mild PE recovery.

Specific to the real-estate market, many things are still over valued, especially in high-income areas. But, from what I have seen, it is mainly in that ~10% range and not the 30-50% we saw from the top.

I have far, far more hope for Apple than the economy in general, and in particular, the housing market. I'm not a nervous Nellie about this. It's widely expected.

I don't think you or anyone has a crystal ball that can assure that this is "definitely coming". Yes, if the Republicans can succeed in spiking the recovery, that might happen. They haven't succeeded yet, and goodness knows they've tried!

Sorry, the left-right dilemma doesn't work with me. I believe the "circle of corruption" includes Democrats, Republicans and voters who have all worked very hard to ignore the Constitutional limits of government and vote for their own interests first, and to hell with the consequences.

I for one, have zero use for Twitter, but use Facebook all the time, so I would much prefer FB sharing integrated into the OS.

Someone who enjoys spewing bile around, of course wants a "dislike" button. And, this is EXACTLY why FB doesn't have one. Why make it easy for people to express negativity? If you have nothing nice to say, just move on, or if you really feel the need to comment, actually form sentences.

Not having a dislike button is not natural. That's not how the real world is. Some phony baloney social network where you can only "like" things leads to an idiocracy type of environment.